c*********o
发帖数: 8367 | 1 美国人哀叹：为何中国比我们还更会搞资本主义？
Local Access打往中国电话卡1.3￠/分种
文章来源: 浪宽 于 2011-01-20 12:49:40 给 浪宽 发送悄悄话
敬请注意:新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表本网立场！
美国人哀叹：为何中国比我们还更会搞资本主义？
时代不同了。13年前，江总访美的时候，小克也像今天小奥这样热情接待过老江，可那
时候，美国人是居高临下，把中国当小学生看待，时不时会指点指点、训导训导。而眼
下胡总访美，却让很多美国人心里酸酸的，也说不出是高兴还是难受，反正不太自在吧
。按理说，胡总来一趟，就签了四五百亿的商业合同，美国人应当高兴才对。可当他们
把美国和中国的现况一比，比出差距了，比得不那么自信了，甚至不只是不自信，而是
有点不知所措，有些失落感了。这不，我下面要向大家介绍的这篇文章，作者干脆认输
了。连搞资本主义也干不过中国，那美国人还有什么值得骄傲的呢？
（声明，为了方便，这里采用意译加趣译）
Why China Does Capitalism Better than the U.S.
By Tony Karon
始于2008年的全球经济衰退，让我们看到一个最据伟大讽刺意义的事实，即共产党统治
的中国，竟然比我们美国的民选政府，更会应负和处理资本主义的危机。中国的经济刺
激方案，开支比俺们的还要大，对抗经济衰退的效果也好得多啊。他们的钱大多用在建
设基础设施，从而进一步奠定了将来经济发展的基础。你看看他们建了多少楼房和高铁
，而我们呢，一直在发补贴给那些没的吃没得住的人。
正当我们西方的这些民主国家苟延残喘之际，中国的经济却咆哮地往前突飞猛进。在过
去三十年，中国让5亿人脱贫，从而迅速创造了世界上最大的中产阶级，为本国提供了
长期的消费需求的引擎。你当然可以指责说，他们的贫富差距太大，社会不公很严重，
可资本主义制度下，不都这样吗？大家是彼此彼此、半斤八两。 美国人的收入不平等
实际上是发达工业国中最严重的。2009年，有4300万美国人正式生活在贫困线以下，这
是51年来最高的纪录。
中国在为将来经济发展所做的准备，对于应付未来的挑战方面，也胜美国一筹。胡总对
美国罕见国事访问，是在他们用自己的办法，成功地抵御了金融危机之后，也象征着一
个新时代的开启。美国式的自由理念将不再是主导。美国实在没有什么可教给中国人的
了。中国模式的核心是政府向国有企业注入庞大的资金来达到刺激经济的目的。我们的
自由经济系统在这方面是一筹莫展。奥总花了那点钱，就已经被“茶党”们骂的狗血喷
头了。
中国领导人现在终于有资格骂美国人了，我们的债务接近一万亿美元。民调显示，更多
的中国人相信他们的国家正朝着正确的方向发展，而这样看自己国家的美国人就少了。
中国应对经济危机的成功，一个重要的原因就是，中央集权的制度，让政府有能力快速
做出重大而复杂的经济决策，不像我们，国会天天为怎样花钱打架，钱不能到位，等钱
到了，问题也更严重了。
真是“三十年河东，三十年河西”啊。19年前，当苏联的解体之际，谁也想不到会出现
现在的局面。我们以为，历史将以西方自由民主的全球化而告终呢。
承认这样的认知错误，不仅需要良好的风度，也需要智慧和诚实。我们不是为中国专制
辩护，它的弊端和腐败也是无可争辩的。没有民主，最终还是会阻碍中国的进步。不过
，令人不解的是，虽然中国共产党领导人不是选举出来的，但他们也会顺应民意。也许
是，不这样做不行，一个通过农民起义发家掌权的党，一定比谁都更明白广大劳动人民
愤怒的潜在破坏力。
美国的现行制度，似乎对国家的长期的危机束手无策。中国人能够快速地适应新形势，
作出困难的决定，并加以有效实施。而美国人引以为豪的三权分立、互相制衡的宪法和
政治生态，则基于对中央集权政府的不信任感。我们的政治系统本来是为了确保个人自
由和充满活力的私营企业。但这个系统现在出了问题了，它现在已走向两极化，已经搞
得思想僵化。目前的情形非常清楚的显示，美国人根本没有勇气来着手处理他们所面对
的长期的财政挑战孔。的确，美国的民主体系可能有一种内在的合法性，是中国的体系
所缺乏的，但如果一个政府如果因为自身的分裂和两极分化，以至于无法正常运作，那
它绝对不会是别人学习的模式。
在美国钱已经成为的政治选举的王牌。最高法院认可任何企业有权使用他们的财力来支
持自己的候选人，抵制和封杀对自己不利的候选人。所以，无论是医疗改革还是经济刺
激计划，由于特殊利益集团的参与，要么不能落实，要么最后搞出一个能取悦某些利益
集团的折衷方案，而不太可能按照全社会的整体利益来立法。这样一来，就不可能出现
高效而合理的决策。更不可能有解决长远问题的能力。
中国的情况恰恰相反，政府可以凌驾在公民之上。例如，要建一个大坝，150万人搬迁
，想不搬迁也不行，不会有什么有效的管道让你可以抗议。但是，中国的系统不会让任
何个别的企业，有权否决或左右政府的决策。中国政府的决策，不会为了某部分人的利
益，而牺牲国家的整体利益。
一句话，目前看来，中国的社会制度，可能比美国的自由制度更具有适应能力和生命力。
Why China Does Capitalism Better than the U.S.
By Tony Karon
One of the great ironies revealed by the global recession that began in 2008
is that Communist Party-ruled China may be doing a better job managing
capitalism's crisis than the democratically elected U.S. government. Beijing
's stimulus spending was larger, infinitely more effective at overcoming the
slowdown, and directed at laying the infrastructural tracks for further
economic expansion.
As Western democracies shuffle wheezily forward, China's economy roars along
at a steady clip, having lifted some half a billion people out of poverty
over the past three decades and rapidly creating the world's largest middle
class to provide an engine for long-term domestic consumer demand. Sure,
there's massive social inequality, but there always is in a capitalist
system. (Income inequality rates in the U.S. are some of the worst in the
industrialized world, and here more people are falling into poverty than are
being raised out of it — the 43 million Americans officially designated as
living in poverty in 2009 was the highest number in the 51 years that
records have been kept.) (See TIME's photoessay "The Rise of Hu Jintao.")
Beijing is also doing a far more effective job than Washington is of tooling
its economy to meet future challenges — at least according to historian
Francis Fukuyama, erstwhile neoconservative intellectual heavyweight. "
President Hu Jintao's rare state visit to Washington this week comes at a
time when many Chinese see their weathering of the financial crisis as a
vindication of their own system, and the beginning of an era in which U.S.-
style liberal ideas will no longer be dominant," wrote Fukukyama in Tuesday'
s Financial Times under a headline stating that the U.S. had nothing to
teach China. "State-owned enterprises are back in vogue, and were the chosen
mechanism through which Beijing administered its massive stimulus."
Chinese leaders are more inclined today to scold the U.S. — its debtor to
the tune of close to a trillion dollars — than to emulate it, and Fukuyama
notes that polls show a larger percentage of Chinese people believing their
country is headed in the right direction compared to Americans. China's
success in navigating the economic crisis, says Fukuyama, was based on the
ability of its authoritarian political system to "make large, complex
decisions quickly, and ... make them relatively well, at least in economic
policy."
These are startling observations from a writer who, 19 years ago, famously
proclaimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union heralded "the end of
history as such... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution
and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of
human government." (See "TimeFrames: An Eye on China, Old and New.")
Fukuyama has had the good grace and intellectual honesty to admit he was
wrong. And he's no apologist for Chinese authoritarianism, calling out its
abuses and corruption, and making clear that he believes the absence of
democracy will eventually hobble China's progress. Still, he notes, while
they don't hold elections, China's Communist leaders are nonetheless
responsive to public opinion. (Of course they are! A Party brought to power
by a peasant rebellion knows full well the destructive potential of the rage
of working people.) But the regime claims solid support from the Chinese
middle class, and hedges against social explosion by directing resources and
investment to more marginal parts of the country.
China's leaders, of course, never subscribed to Fukuyama's "end of history"
maxim; the Marxism on which they were reared would have taught them that
there is no contingent relationship between capitalism and democracy, and
they only had to look at neighbors such as Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore
to see economic success stories under authoritarian rule — although the
prosperity thus achieved played a major role in transforming Taiwan and
South Korea into the noisy democracies they are today. Nor were Beijing's
leaders under any illusions that the free market could take care of such
basic needs as education, health care and infrastructure necessary to keep
the system as a whole growing.
But Fukuyama is also making a point about the comparative inability of the U
.S. system to respond decisively to a long-term crisis. "China adapts
quickly, making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively,"
Fukuyama writes. "Americans pride themselves on constitutional checks and
balances, based on a political culture that distrusts centralised government
. This system has ensured individual liberty and a vibrant private sector,
but it has now become polarised and ideologically rigid. At present it shows
little appetite for dealing with the long-term fiscal challenges the U.S.
faces. Democracy in America may have an inherent legitimacy that the Chinese
system lacks, but it will not be much of a model to anyone if the
government is divided against itself and cannot govern." (See "China's High-
Speed Rail.")
Money has emerged as the electoral trump card in the U.S. political system,
and corporations have a Supreme Court-recognized right to use their
considerable financial muscle to promote candidates and policies favorable
to their business operations and to resist policies and shut out candidates
deemed inimical to their business interests. So, whether it's health reform
or the stimulus package, the power of special interests in the U.S. system
invariably produces either gridlock, or mish-mash legislation crafted to
please the narrow interests of a variety of competing interests rather than
the aggregated interests of the economy and society as a whole. Efficient
and rational decision-making it's not. Nor does it appear capable of
tackling long-term problems. (Comment on this story.)
China is the extreme opposite, of course: It can ride roughshod over the
lives of its citizens. For example, building a dam that requires the forced
relocation of 1.5 million people who have no channels through which to
protest. But China's system is unlikely to give individual corporations the
power to veto or shape government decision making to suit their own bottom
line at the expense of the needs of the system as a whole in the way that,
to choose but one example, U.S. pharmaceutical companies are able to wield
political influence to deny the government the right to negotiate drug
prices for the public health system. Fukuyama seems to be warning that in
Darwinian terms, the Chinese system may currently be more adaptive than the
Land of the Free. | s****l
发帖数: 10462 | | h**n
发帖数: 1232 | | S******s
发帖数: 914 | 4 一个高高在上的人只有看到一个低低在下的人才可能会竖大拇指优雅地说哦尅, 现在美
国人已经找不到这个情调了, 现在只能是郁闷加斜眼, 再过十年估计只能叹气了。三十
年河东，三十年河西，此一时，彼一时也。
【在 s****l 的大作中提到】
: 怎么没有美国人竖大拇指说哦尅？
| Z****g
发帖数: 13731 | 5 鸡巴!! 米国人什么时候比中国人勤奋,什么时候把米犹这些骨头上的蛆去掉再来问!
【在 c*********o 的大作中提到】
: 美国人哀叹：为何中国比我们还更会搞资本主义？
:
: Local Access打往中国电话卡1.3￠/分种
:
: 文章来源: 浪宽 于 2011-01-20 12:49:40 给 浪宽 发送悄悄话
: 敬请注意:新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表本网立场！
:
: 美国人哀叹：为何中国比我们还更会搞资本主义？
: 时代不同了。13年前，江总访美的时候，小克也像今天小奥这样热情接待过老江，可那
: 时候，美国人是居高临下，把中国当小学生看待，时不时会指点指点、训导训导。而眼
| f********n
发帖数: 1560 | 6 那种没有监督和言论自由的资本主义不要也罢。
【在 c*********o 的大作中提到】
: 美国人哀叹：为何中国比我们还更会搞资本主义？
:
: Local Access打往中国电话卡1.3￠/分种
:
: 文章来源: 浪宽 于 2011-01-20 12:49:40 给 浪宽 发送悄悄话
: 敬请注意:新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表本网立场！
:
: 美国人哀叹：为何中国比我们还更会搞资本主义？
: 时代不同了。13年前，江总访美的时候，小克也像今天小奥这样热情接待过老江，可那
: 时候，美国人是居高临下，把中国当小学生看待，时不时会指点指点、训导训导。而眼
| h**********h
发帖数: 589 | 7 这种独裁权贵资本主义，和国民党当初不是一模一样吗？
不过，国民党没有碰上全球化，不能替洋人打工而已
【在 f********n 的大作中提到】
: 那种没有监督和言论自由的资本主义不要也罢。
| m**o
发帖数: 5261 | 8 因为第二个毛还未出现
【在 c*********o 的大作中提到】
: 美国人哀叹：为何中国比我们还更会搞资本主义？
:
: Local Access打往中国电话卡1.3￠/分种
:
: 文章来源: 浪宽 于 2011-01-20 12:49:40 给 浪宽 发送悄悄话
: 敬请注意:新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表本网立场！
:
: 美国人哀叹：为何中国比我们还更会搞资本主义？
: 时代不同了。13年前，江总访美的时候，小克也像今天小奥这样热情接待过老江，可那
: 时候，美国人是居高临下，把中国当小学生看待，时不时会指点指点、训导训导。而眼
| t****a
发帖数: 115 | 9 严重同意.
中国这样的体制,办好事快,办坏事也快.
再来个疯子搞个文革什么的也不是不可能.
重庆不就是滚滚红潮么?谁敢说个不?
连王储都去视察呢.
【在 m**o 的大作中提到】
: 因为第二个毛还未出现
|
|
